The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 63-75

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 63... ... 63 Survey Results A P P E N D I X B This appendix details the responses on every question asked in the survey. The first set of questions is for DOTs that do not use 3D digital models as contract documents, the second set of questions is for DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes, and the third set of questions is for DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes and as contract documents. Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 64 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Group 2: DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes Reasons why agencies do not use 3D digital models as contract documents: Reason DOTs Agency has limited experience using 3D digital models as information documents California, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, Colorado Modeling standards are not available California, Idaho, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia Agency leadership has not prioritized the use of 3D digital models Nebraska, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin Contracting industry has not supported North Dakota, Wyoming More education or training is needed for the office staff California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, Colorado More education or training is needed for the field survey and inspection staff Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, Colorado More education or training is needed for the equipment operators Arkansas, Connecticut, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina Lack of mobile devices for field survey and/or construction staff Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio The electronic review process is unclear Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado Reviewing and processing changes to the 3D digital model are not yet understood California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado Unsure of the accuracy of the 3D digital model California, Connecticut, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, Colorado Unsure of the value of additional efforts needed to use 3D digital models as contract documents Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin Unsure of the level of detail needed to meet contractors' needs Arkansas, California, Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin Unsure how to meet DOT inspection and contract admin needs Arkansas, California, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin Unsure how to create model of record that both contractor and DOT field staff can use Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... Survey Results 65 The design liabilities associated with using 3D digital models as contract documents are not yet understood Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado The construction liabilities associated with using 3D digital models as contract documents are not yet understood Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado Contract specifications are not developed Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Concerns about stamping and sealing of contract documents California, Kansas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia Unsuccessful attempt Types of projects that use 3D digital models for information purposes: Project Type DOTs New Road Construction Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Road Resurfacing Missouri, Wyoming Road Rehabilitation Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin Grade and Drain Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming Intersection Improvement Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming Corridor Widening Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Bridge Rehabilitation Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, Vermont New or Replacement Bridge Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia Safety Improvement Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming Other Wisconsin: Any project with earthwork South Carolina: Bridge approaches, limited experience on interstate rehabilitation project Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... 66 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Feature DOTs Feature Definitions Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Colorado Symbologies Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Colorado Material Information Arkansas, Missouri, Colorado Ability to geospatially orient the model Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Colorado Other North Dakota: Grading surfacesVermont: Surface models, solid Structure models, spatial layout geometry Disciplines included in the agency's 3D digital models and their level of modeling adequacy: Discipline Level of Modeling Adequacy DOT Structures Low Ohio, Oregon, Missouri Average New Hampshire, California, Connecticut, Vermont High Washington Very High Colorado Existing Roadways Low South Carolina, Oregon Average North Dakota, California, Wyoming, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Nebraska High South Dakota, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas Very High Colorado Proposed Roadways Average North Dakota, California, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Nebraska High South Dakota, New Hampshire, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Kansas Very High Colorado, Wyoming, South Carolina, Missouri Existing Drainage Structures Low New Hampshire, Oregon, Connecticut Average California, Wyoming, Washington, Wisconsin, Ohio, Vermont High South Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas Proposed Drainage Structures Low New Hampshire, Vermont, Nebraska Average North Dakota, California, Wyoming, Oregon, Missouri High South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ohio, Connecticut, Kansas Very High Colorado Features included in 3D digital models used for information purposes: Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... Survey Results 67 Utilities Very Low Connecticut Low North Dakota, New Hampshire, California, Oregon, Vermont Average Colorado, Washington, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri Signing and Pavement Markings Very Low Vermont, Kansas Low New Hampshire, California, Arkansas Average Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri High Washington, Ohio Lighting Very Low California, Vermont, Kansas Low New Hampshire Average Colorado, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ohio, Missouri High Washington Landscaping Very Low New Hampshire Low Ohio Average Colorado, California, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Vermont High Washington Temporary Traffic Control Very Low Vermont Low North Dakota, New Hampshire, California, Ohio Average Wisconsin, Arkansas, Connecticut High Missouri Very High Colorado Right-ofWay (ROW) Low California, Nebraska Average North Dakota, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas High New Hampshire, Washington, Wisconsin Very High Colorado, Wyoming, Missouri Other North Dakota: Wetland impacts (Average) Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... 68 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Status DOTs Slightly increase Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Significantly increase California, Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado Remain the same Oregon Plans to provide 3D digital models as contract documents in the next five years: Status DOTs No Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming Yes Connecticut, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont Unsure Arkansas, California, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado Future plans for 3D digital models used for information purposes: Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... Survey Results 69 Group 3: DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes and as contract documents Policies Percentage of projects using 3D digital models as contract documents: Percentage DOTs Less than 5% Alabama, Florida, New York Between 5% and 10% Utah Between 10% and 20% Between 20% and 50% Oklahoma More than 50% Percentage of projects using 3D digital models for information purposes: Percentage DOTs Less than 5% Alabama Between 5% and 10% Florida Between 10% and 20% Between 20% and 50% Oklahoma More than 50% New York, Utah Types of projects that use 3D digital models as contract documents: Project Type DOTs New Road Construction Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Road Resurfacing Florida, New York Road Rehabilitation New York, Utah Grade and Drain Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Intersection Improvement New York, Oklahoma, Utah Corridor Widening Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Bridge Rehabilitation New York New or Replacement Bridge New York, Utah Safety Improvement New York, Oklahoma Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... 70 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Applications of 3D digital models beyond design: Application DOTs Visualization Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah 4D models New York 5D models New York Quantity takeoff Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Quality checks Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Project progress reviews Alabama, New York Pay quantities verification Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Acceptance and payment Alabama, New York, Utah Construction Planning/Clash detection Florida, New York Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Inspection Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Public outreach Alabama, New York, Utah Partner agency engagement New York Life-cycle asset management New York, Utah Other Utah: Used in place of hard copy plan sheets New York: 3D As-Builts, Value Engineering/review Standards for using 3D digital models as contract documents: Status DOTs No New York Yes Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah Additional documents provided to contractors: Document DOTs Electronic Plans Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Standard Specifications Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Special Specification Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah DTM and XML Formats Alignment Geometry Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Coordinal Control Data Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Graphic Standards Alabama, Oklahoma, Utah Other Utah: Survey report and statistical analysis of the topography Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... Survey Results 71 3D digital models seals and stamps: Status DOTs No Alabama, Utah Yes Florida, New York, Oklahoma Technical: Level of adequacy for disciplines included in 3D digital models as contract documents, and whether they are a contract item: Discipline DOTsFlorida Utah New York Alabama Oklahoma Structures Not Applicable; Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Low Existing Roadways Average, Not a Contract Item Low, Not a Contract Item High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Proposed Roadways High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Existing Drainage Structures Not a Contract Item Average, Not a Contract Item High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Average, Not a Contract Item Proposed Drainage Structures Average, Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Average, Not a Contract Item Utilities Average, Not a Contract Item Low, A Contract Item Low, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Low, Not a Contract Item Signing and Pavement Markings Not Applicable Very High, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Lighting Not Applicable Average, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Landscaping Not Applicable Very Low, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... 72 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Temporary Traffic Control Not Applicable Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item High, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Right-ofWay (ROW) Not Applicable Very High, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Features included in 3D digital models contract documents: Feature DOTs Feature Definitions Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Symbologies Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Material Information Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Ability to geospatially orient the model Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Utah: M&P, Inspection requirements, and relevant metadata New York: Guidance for using data and support info Storage of 3D digital model data: Storage DOTs DOT network Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Cloud-based solution New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Alabama: Compact Disc (CD) Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... Survey Results 73 Responsibility for paying for the modifications in the model of record: Party DOTs DOT Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Both DOT and Contractor Alabama, Oklahoma QC checklist for 3D digital models: Reason DOTs No Alabama, Oklahoma, Utah Yes Florida, New York Risk mitigation strategies for 3D modeling: Reason DOTs Partnering and previewing the 3D digital models in advance of the letting Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Understanding the allocation of contract liability between parties Florida, New York, Oklahoma Performing internal checks of the quality of the model of record Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Utah: Use of pilot projects to understand the good and bad Contractor feedback on using 3D digital models as contract documents: Reason DOTs Positive Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Alabama: Currently doing first pilot project. People: Engineer of record for 3D digital models: Reason DOTs DOT staff New York Design Consultant Staff Florida DOT or Consultant Staff Utah Both DOT and Consultant Staff Alabama Other Oklahoma: The engineer who seals plans Access to model of record: Reason DOTs DOT Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Consultant Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Contractor Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other New York: Depending on project Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... 74 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Resources provided by DOTs DOT Resources Florida (FDOT) The following link provides access to FDOT Design Manual and the 900-series chapters address model-centric plans production. Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... Survey Results 75 confidence in this process and deliverable, NCDOT hopes to make it a contract document. NCDOT may still have long ways from doing away with 2D plans, profiles, and cross-sections. Read the entire page →

From page 63...

... 63 Survey Results A P P E N D I X B This appendix details the responses on every question asked in the survey. The first set of questions is for DOTs that do not use 3D digital models as contract documents, the second set of questions is for DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes, and the third set of questions is for DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes and as contract documents.

Read the entire page →

From page 64...

... 64 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Group 2: DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes Reasons why agencies do not use 3D digital models as contract documents: Reason DOTs Agency has limited experience using 3D digital models as information documents California, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, Colorado Modeling standards are not available California, Idaho, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia Agency leadership has not prioritized the use of 3D digital models Nebraska, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin Contracting industry has not supported North Dakota, Wyoming More education or training is needed for the office staff California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, Colorado More education or training is needed for the field survey and inspection staff Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, Colorado More education or training is needed for the equipment operators Arkansas, Connecticut, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina Lack of mobile devices for field survey and/or construction staff Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio The electronic review process is unclear Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado Reviewing and processing changes to the 3D digital model are not yet understood California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado Unsure of the accuracy of the 3D digital model California, Connecticut, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, Colorado Unsure of the value of additional efforts needed to use 3D digital models as contract documents Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin Unsure of the level of detail needed to meet contractors' needs Arkansas, California, Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin Unsure how to meet DOT inspection and contract admin needs Arkansas, California, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin Unsure how to create model of record that both contractor and DOT field staff can use Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin

Read the entire page →

From page 65...

... Survey Results 65 The design liabilities associated with using 3D digital models as contract documents are not yet understood Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado The construction liabilities associated with using 3D digital models as contract documents are not yet understood Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado Contract specifications are not developed Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Concerns about stamping and sealing of contract documents California, Kansas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia Unsuccessful attempt Types of projects that use 3D digital models for information purposes: Project Type DOTs New Road Construction Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Road Resurfacing Missouri, Wyoming Road Rehabilitation Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin Grade and Drain Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming Intersection Improvement Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming Corridor Widening Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Bridge Rehabilitation Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, Vermont New or Replacement Bridge Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia Safety Improvement Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming Other Wisconsin: Any project with earthwork South Carolina: Bridge approaches, limited experience on interstate rehabilitation project

Read the entire page →

From page 66...

... 66 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Feature DOTs Feature Definitions Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Colorado Symbologies Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Colorado Material Information Arkansas, Missouri, Colorado Ability to geospatially orient the model Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Colorado Other North Dakota: Grading surfacesVermont: Surface models, solid Structure models, spatial layout geometry Disciplines included in the agency's 3D digital models and their level of modeling adequacy: Discipline Level of Modeling Adequacy DOT Structures Low Ohio, Oregon, Missouri Average New Hampshire, California, Connecticut, Vermont High Washington Very High Colorado Existing Roadways Low South Carolina, Oregon Average North Dakota, California, Wyoming, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Nebraska High South Dakota, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas Very High Colorado Proposed Roadways Average North Dakota, California, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Nebraska High South Dakota, New Hampshire, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Kansas Very High Colorado, Wyoming, South Carolina, Missouri Existing Drainage Structures Low New Hampshire, Oregon, Connecticut Average California, Wyoming, Washington, Wisconsin, Ohio, Vermont High South Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas Proposed Drainage Structures Low New Hampshire, Vermont, Nebraska Average North Dakota, California, Wyoming, Oregon, Missouri High South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ohio, Connecticut, Kansas Very High Colorado Features included in 3D digital models used for information purposes:

Read the entire page →

From page 67...

... Survey Results 67 Utilities Very Low Connecticut Low North Dakota, New Hampshire, California, Oregon, Vermont Average Colorado, Washington, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri Signing and Pavement Markings Very Low Vermont, Kansas Low New Hampshire, California, Arkansas Average Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri High Washington, Ohio Lighting Very Low California, Vermont, Kansas Low New Hampshire Average Colorado, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ohio, Missouri High Washington Landscaping Very Low New Hampshire Low Ohio Average Colorado, California, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Vermont High Washington Temporary Traffic Control Very Low Vermont Low North Dakota, New Hampshire, California, Ohio Average Wisconsin, Arkansas, Connecticut High Missouri Very High Colorado Right-ofWay (ROW) Low California, Nebraska Average North Dakota, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas High New Hampshire, Washington, Wisconsin Very High Colorado, Wyoming, Missouri Other North Dakota: Wetland impacts (Average)

Read the entire page →

From page 68...

... 68 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Status DOTs Slightly increase Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Significantly increase California, Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado Remain the same Oregon Plans to provide 3D digital models as contract documents in the next five years: Status DOTs No Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming Yes Connecticut, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont Unsure Arkansas, California, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado Future plans for 3D digital models used for information purposes:

Read the entire page →

From page 69...

... Survey Results 69 Group 3: DOTs that use 3D digital models for information purposes and as contract documents Policies Percentage of projects using 3D digital models as contract documents: Percentage DOTs Less than 5% Alabama, Florida, New York Between 5% and 10% Utah Between 10% and 20% Between 20% and 50% Oklahoma More than 50% Percentage of projects using 3D digital models for information purposes: Percentage DOTs Less than 5% Alabama Between 5% and 10% Florida Between 10% and 20% Between 20% and 50% Oklahoma More than 50% New York, Utah Types of projects that use 3D digital models as contract documents: Project Type DOTs New Road Construction Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Road Resurfacing Florida, New York Road Rehabilitation New York, Utah Grade and Drain Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Intersection Improvement New York, Oklahoma, Utah Corridor Widening Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Bridge Rehabilitation New York New or Replacement Bridge New York, Utah Safety Improvement New York, Oklahoma

Read the entire page →

From page 70...

... 70 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Applications of 3D digital models beyond design: Application DOTs Visualization Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah 4D models New York 5D models New York Quantity takeoff Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Quality checks Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Project progress reviews Alabama, New York Pay quantities verification Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Acceptance and payment Alabama, New York, Utah Construction Planning/Clash detection Florida, New York Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Inspection Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Public outreach Alabama, New York, Utah Partner agency engagement New York Life-cycle asset management New York, Utah Other Utah: Used in place of hard copy plan sheets New York: 3D As-Builts, Value Engineering/review Standards for using 3D digital models as contract documents: Status DOTs No New York Yes Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah Additional documents provided to contractors: Document DOTs Electronic Plans Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Standard Specifications Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Special Specification Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah DTM and XML Formats Alignment Geometry Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Coordinal Control Data Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Graphic Standards Alabama, Oklahoma, Utah Other Utah: Survey report and statistical analysis of the topography

Read the entire page →

From page 71...

... Survey Results 71 3D digital models seals and stamps: Status DOTs No Alabama, Utah Yes Florida, New York, Oklahoma Technical: Level of adequacy for disciplines included in 3D digital models as contract documents, and whether they are a contract item: Discipline DOTsFlorida Utah New York Alabama Oklahoma Structures Not Applicable; Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Low Existing Roadways Average, Not a Contract Item Low, Not a Contract Item High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Proposed Roadways High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Existing Drainage Structures Not a Contract Item Average, Not a Contract Item High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Average, Not a Contract Item Proposed Drainage Structures Average, Not a Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item Very High, A Contract Item High, Not a Contract Item Average, Not a Contract Item Utilities Average, Not a Contract Item Low, A Contract Item Low, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Low, Not a Contract Item Signing and Pavement Markings Not Applicable Very High, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Lighting Not Applicable Average, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Landscaping Not Applicable Very Low, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item

Read the entire page →

From page 72...

... 72 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Temporary Traffic Control Not Applicable Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item High, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Right-ofWay (ROW) Not Applicable Very High, A Contract Item Average, A Contract Item Not Applicable, Not a Contract Item Very Low, Not a Contract Item Features included in 3D digital models contract documents: Feature DOTs Feature Definitions Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Symbologies Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Material Information Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Ability to geospatially orient the model Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Utah: M&P, Inspection requirements, and relevant metadata New York: Guidance for using data and support info Storage of 3D digital model data: Storage DOTs DOT network Alabama, Florida, New York, Utah Cloud-based solution New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Alabama: Compact Disc (CD)

Read the entire page →

From page 73...

... Survey Results 73 Responsibility for paying for the modifications in the model of record: Party DOTs DOT Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Both DOT and Contractor Alabama, Oklahoma QC checklist for 3D digital models: Reason DOTs No Alabama, Oklahoma, Utah Yes Florida, New York Risk mitigation strategies for 3D modeling: Reason DOTs Partnering and previewing the 3D digital models in advance of the letting Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Understanding the allocation of contract liability between parties Florida, New York, Oklahoma Performing internal checks of the quality of the model of record Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Utah: Use of pilot projects to understand the good and bad Contractor feedback on using 3D digital models as contract documents: Reason DOTs Positive Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other Alabama: Currently doing first pilot project. People: Engineer of record for 3D digital models: Reason DOTs DOT staff New York Design Consultant Staff Florida DOT or Consultant Staff Utah Both DOT and Consultant Staff Alabama Other Oklahoma: The engineer who seals plans Access to model of record: Reason DOTs DOT Alabama, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Consultant Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Contractor Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Utah Other New York: Depending on project

Read the entire page →

From page 74...

... 74 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents Resources provided by DOTs DOT Resources Florida (FDOT) The following link provides access to FDOT Design Manual and the 900-series chapters address model-centric plans production.

Read the entire page →

From page 75...

... Survey Results 75 confidence in this process and deliverable, NCDOT hopes to make it a contract document. NCDOT may still have long ways from doing away with 2D plans, profiles, and cross-sections.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.